Talk:Wales

It should say what Wales was united as under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (a kingdom), the word united on its own is vague for readers.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What’s the thoughts of other editors on this? Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

To make this suggestion useful you would need to produce multiple accounts, and uses, in modern academic sources, of such a definition for the lands controlled by Gruffydd ap Llewelyn. As far as I know there are none. If you cannot produce any, this question is not helping to build a better encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the modern academic source I would use is the book “The Last King of Wales: Gruffudd ap Llywelyn, c.1013-1063” written by two Welsh PHD historians Dr Michael Davies, and Dr Sean Davies. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 13:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Could we have some quotations please, also comments on the standing of this source? Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I will provide more quotes and sources below -

Dr Rhun Emlyn is a medieval historian at Aberystwyth University, he stated “There were a number of kings and princes during the period who controlled most of Wales but he (Gruffydd ap Llywelyn) was the only one who ruled the whole of what we now know as Wales” he said.

The late Rhondda -born historian John Davies recognised Gruffudd’s achievements as a warrior in his book A History of Wales, writing: “From about 1057 until his death in 1063, the whole of Wales recognised the kingship of Gruffudd ap Llewelyn. For about seven brief years, Wales was one, under one ruler, a feat with neither precedent nor successor.”

And here’s some more quotes from an article written by University of Wales PHD historian Dr Sean Davies - https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofWales/Wales-Mercia-Harold-the-road-to-1066/

“Gruffudd ap Llywelyn killed Gruffydd ap Rhydderch in battle in 1055 and retook Deheubarth.

He marched on Hereford in the same year and around the same time he also seized Morgannwg, which was between the Afon Llwyd and the River Towy, and Gwent. He also took extensive territories along the border.

In 1056 he was victorious over another English army in Glasbury, Powys.

He was now recognised as the King of Wales”.

“His name was Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and he was the last, and the most formidable, King of Wales”.

“Gruffudd, meanwhile, gathered a huge army and marched to a pre-ordained meeting point with Ælfgar near the mouth of the River Wye. This was the heartland of Gruffudd ap Rhydderch’s domain, and the latter was killed by his northern rival and namesake, Gruffudd ap Llywelyn thereby becoming the only man to unite and rule all the lands that comprise modern Wales”. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What’s the issue? It already says Wales was briefly united, and “united” isn’t remotely “vague”. More importantly, has anyone asked for a Checkuser on this obvious sock? If not, I’ll do so. KJP1 (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

User:DeCausa has beaten me to it. KJP1 (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no issue, I’m only suggesting to add that it was united as a “kingdom” because it was, and because it adds more context and information. Richard Keating requested credible sources and quotations which I have provided. I have come to the talk page respectfully to avoid an edit war. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

You have provided quotations which do not support your point, some from sources that are evidently unreliable, and you are pushing your original research. I hope for a quick resolution from the sockpuppet investigation. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The quotations and sources are from books and articles published by Welsh historians with PHD degrees, they are reliable sources and clearly state that Wales was unified under one Welsh king, Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, therefore they do support my point. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

A source that incorrectly asserts that Gruffydd was "recognised as the King of Wales" certainly isn't reliable on that point. Your comments are not helping to build an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

It’s not incorrect, Gruffydd was recognised as the King of Wales by Edward the Confessor, King of England. Here’s a source from the early 1100s to prove it followed by the page numbers and quotations - The Chronicle of Florence of Worcester, with the Two Continuations; Comprising Annals of English History, from the Departure of the Romans to the Reign of Edward I. Translated from the Latin, with Notes and Illustrations by T. Forester : Page 158 “Bishop Aldred and the earls of Leofric and Harold afterwards reconciled Griffyth, King of Wales, with King Edward”.

Page 157 “Meanwhile, after an interchange of messages, Griffyth, Algar, and Harold met at a place called Biligesteagea, and peace being proposed and accepted, they contracted a firm alliance with eachother”. Jake-Hughes23 (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Great Britain in lead

Just noticed, the lead doesn't mention Wales is mainly on the island of Great Britain? I find that an odd omission. Was it removed? Can it be added? DankJae 00:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, and it could be confusing. Are you talking specifically about the island of Great Britain (in other words, to exclude offshore islands like Anglesey and Bardsey), or the political entity of Great Britain (as in "The United Kingdom of... "), which includes the offshore islands? You could have a somewhat imprecise wording such as "...a country in Great Britain that is part of the United Kingdom...." - but, would that really be helpful to readers? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

just the island, of course worded to "mainly situated on". But I guess its omission was intentional so will not discuss it further. DankJae 08:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2024

change snowdon(yr wyddfa) to Yr Wyddfa. (english name was dropped from use in 2022) 2A00:23C7:A082:E101:C1EC:35A:17EA:1D24 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done, article is at Snowdon. CMD (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Population at 2021 census

@DankJae there seems to be a inconsistency in the ONS data for the 2021 census. In Nomis, they use the 3,107,494 figure. It's also the figure used by the Welsh Government. But in the latest ONS mid-year pop estimate dataset, they give the 2021 census figure (not the mid-year pop est — the actual 2021 census figure) as 3,106,770. There's a similar discrepancy for England but not for Northern Ireland it seems.

I've sent a query to the ONS as to which is correct. Either the latest 3,106,770 figure is a correction or else it's a mistake or it's something I have misunderstood. Dgp4004 (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Could we just round this to 3,107,000? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dgp4004, ah finally found it hidden on one of the data sheets. Hmn, is this the only source found using this figure? One from only a month prior uses the usual one,[1]? Relying on a figure hidden in a dataset for a different purpose seems dubious, if the most accessible figures from the ONS use the original one best stick with that for reliability.

Looking further, the documentation alongside that dataset[2] seems to give the impression they are estimating that there were some minor anomalies, but that doesn't mean that the original figure was incorrect (based on the actual entries they got).

Their methodology states they adjusted Wales' figure by about ~700 (rounded) because of an estimated internal migration (that's around the difference in figures?). I guess that is the reason? but if the ONS haven't updated it across most of their publications, then I believe the original more accessible figure should stay if until they update the rest. The ONS may have got 3,107,494 entries from Wales, but estimate about 700 of them internally migrated? [3]

It's been over a year since they did that, so I assume the ONS did not want to carry the estimated anomalies forward? DankJae 14:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Well found! Let's stick with 3,107,494 then. Dgp4004 (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2024

Can a registered user please add to the 'Geography and natural history' section that 'Rocks found in a quarry near to the village Llangynog, Carmarthenshire, in 1977 contain some of the Earth's oldest fossils which date from the Ediacaran period, 564 million years ago, when Wales was part of the micro-continent Avalonia.' or words to that effect. See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-68005838

Thanks 2A00:23C2:8B08:E501:EDD1:4289:671B:48B3 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Country, State or Nation?

This helpful article helped me understand the difference between a Country, State and Nation. I note the confusion of different interpretations of each word. However I would argue the introduction of this article should read "Wales is a nation that is part of the United Kingdom". This would better agree with the wiki definitions of Country, Nation and State (polity). Ssojjoss (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a bit more to it than that. It is a good article, and one thing it brings out is that the definition of a country is somewhat fluid depending on usage and context. The UK is a quasi federal unitary state, so we are quite clear what the state is, but nations and countries are not so narrowly or carefully defined. If Wales is a nation, then the territory of the nation is surely a country. See for instance definition 5 in the Oxford English dictionary for country: "The territory of a nation; a region constituting an independent state, or a region, province, etc., which was once independent and is still distinct in institutions, language, etc." And that argument has been accepted by the UK government, ISO, the UN and others, who have documents referring to Wales as a country. So no, there doesn't seem to be a good reason not to call it a country. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a very UK (and, at that, UK Wikipedian) concern which doesn't translate well around the globe, or even across the anglosphere. ("Nation", "patria", "fatherland" and cognates tend to be the equivalent fuzes elsewhere.) The bottomline is that what is or isn't a "country" isn't definable. They are, per the RS, either called that or they are not. There's no objective basis for saying that Wales or Northern Ireland is a country but Texas or Catalunya isn't other than custom and practice in the English-language RS. It just is what it is and there's no productive purpose in delving any deeper! Just go with the RS-flow an refer to Wales as a country. DeCausa (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I’d agree on the bottom line - it is what the RS say it is. And there are numerous RS that refer to it as a “country”. But nor am I seeing any conflict with Wikipedia’s definitions. “A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation or other political entity”. That seems to fit Wales perfectly well. KJP1 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The word "other" should be removed I think. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The compromise reached years ago, for the intros of this page, Scotland & Wales - "is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". As for Northern Ireland's intro - "is a part of the United Kingdom". GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

ISO 3166-2:GB defines Wales as a country. Which is as close to an official answer as we'll get.

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:GB Dgp4004 (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No it's not and is not the reason why we describe it as a country. It's because of WP:DUE: if reliable sources predominantly describe it so (which is the case) then that's what we follow. If that "predominance" changes, then we would change. That's it. nothing more nothing less. DeCausa (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Anthem

It would appear, according to Wales.com, that "Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau gradually became accepted as Wales’ national anthem – though to this day, it has no official status as such". Therefore, should this be taken as Wales does not have an official national anthem? Similar to Scotland, England and Northern Ireland not have an official anthem, instead a song which is used as an unofficial anthem primarily at sporting events? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I would point out this article from the BBC, which concludes "Increasingly sung at patriotic gatherings, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau gradually developed into Wales' national anthem, although it is neither officially or legally recognised as such". Therefore, this would suggest that it must be recognised on the article that Wales has no official national anthem, and instead, commonly, the anthem used unofficially. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention in cases like this is to use de facto so I have added that -----Snowded ^TALK 22:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Granted, however, I thought it best to open up a discussion here as your previous reverting had a bold claim that it was the official national anthem as it "had been the national anthem before the Welsh Government was established". Whilst true, that does not appear to be relevant. It is indicated through a number of sources that there is no official or legal national anthem of Wales.

• Everything you need to know about Wales' National Anthem
• Welsh National Anthem
• The background to Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau

Goodreg3 (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I reverted to a long standing stable version - you might want to check WP:BRD and also check out the language rentry in the UK article. It doesn't say 'none' with defacto added on the end that would be absurd. I'll replaced 'none" with 'de facto' which is in line with the reference which does not say there is no national anthem, it says there is no official one -----Snowded ^TALK 22:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No official national anthem would certainly confirm there is "none". There is no official national anthem, rather, one which is used on a de facto basis. That does not take away from the fact there is no legal or official anthem in this instance. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, I am aware of the BRD cycle, which is why I reverted back and then opened this discussion for others to become involved to get a consensus on this. Whether reverting to a long standing stable version or not, it does not excuse the fact that the article currently appears to be displaying wrong or misleading information that there is a legal and official national anthem of Wales. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The reference you give does not support 'none' it does support 'de facto'. Many long standing things are not official, but they exist. You need to check the UK article on language as an example. Otherwise you evidentally are not familiar with the BRD convention - it does not mean that the disputed edit stands, it means the long standing version does until resolved. I've done my best to respond here and shown you why with examples. There is nothing wrong or misleading in de facto -----Snowded ^TALK 22:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Arguably, it doesn't support a de facto use in my eyes either. We just take it for granted that it is commonly used as the Welsh anthem in the same manner as the other countries of the UK. Unless you can find alternative sources which support it as either a de facto anthem, or official, or indeed legal, anthem, then please do so. I will leave it and see what others suggest. Additionally, the layout you have created on the article infobox in my opinion does not flow well and not in line with other countries. I would also ask for clarity on what you mean by referring to checking the UK article on language as an example? As I have tried, but to no luck as I am unsure what you are referring to? Goodreg3 (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

If you check the information box on the United Kingdom article under language you will see that English is 'de facto'. It is the convention for things that exist but are not official. Somewhat ironically Welsh is I think the only official language in the United Kingdom which sort of makes the point. As to format, de facto could be moved until after the recording if you think that would flow better, But none is as incorrect as official would be -----Snowded ^TALK 23:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not in anyway against the usage of de facto, however, I would point out a long standing convention and stable version on Scotland which referred to a national motto of Scotland. This was found to be factually incorrect, with no sources confirming an official motto of Scotland. It could have been argued that Nemo me impune lacessit or In Defens were de facto mottos of Scotland, however, they were not referred to as such as there was no evidence of them being either officially or legally recognised as such, hence it was removed. So, it may penetrate to the same outcome here, the recognition of no official national anthem, but rather, an unofficial one. Whether you want to refer to that as de facto on the basis on commonly accepted Wikipedia language, fine, but it does not excuse the fact that there is no agreed, official or legal national anthem of Wales, and I think the article should perhaps be a little more clearer on that. Goodreg3 (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me repeat a point to which you have not responded. Many things exist by custom that have been established over time. It would be nonsensical to say that English is an unofficial language, although technically it has never been made official. The word to describe that situation is deItalic textfacto and that is more than sufficient. -----Snowded ^TALK 07:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Other pages do not create precedents for this page. De facto is perfectly good. None is wrong. Scotland is not Wales and it is a different situation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

It would appear this debate has caused some unrest amongst fellow Welsh Wikipedia contributors. I’m not saying de facto is right or wrong, I couldn’t care less about how it is worded. Rather, the debate is about whether Wales does or doesn’t have an officially recognised national anthem as the article, up until yesterday, suggested. The situation here and the Scottish motto isn’t far apart in my view. They could both be considered de facto considering the long standing tradition and assumption of the Scottish motto. What I am saying is, is that it wasn’t kept and refereed to as the de facto motto. It was removed because it wasn’t the official or legal motto of the country. The very same situation here with regards to a Welsh anthem. Goodreg3 (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I think anyone with any knowledge of Wales reading the article would probably think "de facto" was pedantic. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The debate is about whether Wales does or doesn’t have an officially recognised national anthem. No, the debate has thus far been whether it is an official anthem. "Officially recognised" is not well defined. It is used on official occasions such as the opening of the Senedd. How is that not official recognition? De facto is indeed a touch pedantic. We can tolerate that pedantry, but let's not make more of this than we should. The page is to tell people about Wales, not to tell people how clever the editors are. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Unofficial or none (which I reverted last night) are plain wrong. So the choice is really being saying nothing other than having it as the entry or adding 'de facto' -----Snowded ^TALK 14:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding what is the current dispute. As of now, it says it's "de facto", which seems correct. As far as I can tell, no one's say it need be changed. The argument seems to be over what it previously said which doesn't seem relevant any more. Is that right? DeCausa (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That is right. The current version appears to command a consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)